From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borgia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 22, 1999
259 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 22, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the underlying agreement between the plaintiffs' first counsel in this action, Dominick F. Callo, P. C. (hereinafter Callo), and the second counsel, McDonough, Marcus, Cohn Tretter, P. C. (hereinafter McDonough), entitles Callo at this juncture to 33 1/3% of the entirety of the attorneys' fees recovered herein, notwithstanding any subsequent fee-sharing arrangements between McDonough and the third successive attorney for the plaintiffs, Barasch McGarry, P. C. ( see, Benjamin v. Koeppel, 85 N.Y.2d 549, 556; Witt v. Cohen, 192 A.D.2d 528; Gore v. Kressner, 157 A.D.2d 575; Sterling v. Miller, 2 A.D.2d 900, affd 3 N.Y.2d 778).

O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Borgia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 22, 1999
259 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Borgia v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:PAUL BORGIA et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, BARASCH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 22, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 628

Citing Cases

Samuel v. Druckman

Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, Sinel demonstrated that he "actually contributed to the legal work"…

Samuel v. Druckman Sinel

If the Court determines that defendants complied with Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-107 ( 22 NYCRR…